Puttaswamy vs Sri Muralidhara Pai B on 1 September, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Puttaswamy vs Sri Muralidhara Pai B on 1 September, 2010

Bench: Manjula Chellur

. i .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATEE) THIS THE 13"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2C!10

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR. J, S. KHEI-{AR,  -

Azxin  

THE HoN'B:.E MRS. JUsTIC*3:"1zsriA5§SIJi§LA 

§:g:(: No.1 151'i:>:+:"__;g§)1<5"(r;f1v1j;)V:  

1. Puttaswamy   ;
S/o Late I{a§.aiai'1  '
Aged abom:  .yez§:rs_, 

 2. 831$'; " 'V

W/1:9 Puitaswatrggr  _ H
Ageti abﬁiii €319} ~yé:»:-V1'1's.__ " __

(Bath  2-eagidin.g"  M, Raad
(?;f1€21;nara§*a;;§:it:1a' Town
 Disti'ict--}--. * COMPLAINANTS

  {V-B§rs;~';., _'1'-%:%.,' 3&5. Prasad, Advocate)

  Sri. Niuiialidhara Pa,i.B
"  Presidihg Officer
 _Fasi; Track Stmrt
  "Cfia"z1nara§rapai:1a
  Hassan ﬁistrici ...ACCUSED



iww

,p,.'

'' In the Eight 9:? the aforementioned
discrepancies in the View taken by the.--.__
inwer agayellate ccurt, whiph * _V
discrepanciea g0 t6 the root of 

matter, tha anly crmrse left open t§;' €h§s;_*--..____" :_. 

atom": is 10 ﬁzmanﬁ the Case to 'th(>:''~j§._t3W§;1f ' "
appeiiate scams: :0 cangiﬁezfche c2:se~+3_i:"~..:f:'as: " A 
parties in the Eight 6f the st"émd'--.ta1cen" by  '

them in the respective s':,;its_;":.1i1d'[Tf0r V:thi'2§'%..__ 

purpose, the iower jVappeI}_afe_ cou'rt 'wi'1l 
have ts éecide t}";'e'~..fcW0 '-apps-ais A .fi!.Qd 
SC§Eii"3i§€'§§'§' i§i€j€§§€iYiC§ﬁf1"f,. {xi aacfx .0thé.r €§£:1dV,"
at the Ixmsh it <_:_fé'i:-1» --r_efer  ~.t_{) {he
C0mmi3sioner.'é~.,_repiirt" ..i1:: V"v._iew (if "the
order passeé  7.O;.jS;VN"u?{68','._1991 on
I.A_.No,8."     =

In (Jr-:i"l€*:'2'"__.--'i"<::5 5If_cij;ez11r§'r?;_s£1jai:: f"<iis9tiqedience 0f the
diT£fCti€}ﬂ,9gVi}=§,i thi$"{:§)1}fi, iearned counsel for
the {:G:2ipiaiﬁanf't.s';%';;é'§;iAt'im;ars brmzght is cur notice

the orcie§*"'--«gdass:é«:1  b.y7«t i*1e zsccussrdfrespondent dated

in ﬁ;f§'a----$3.50/9? wherein he crmciudeci as ihﬁ above cirztumstances, this "r;d:2rt is af the Ceﬁsiéered View that even though ihﬁ gudgrnéaxrf; ﬁeiivered 1113 RSA No.258(}f26G"7 coniains directictrn to decide {C338 awa appeals separately, the same cannot be read as an order setting agiée ﬁgégrxgegzi and éecrea: passed in E%R.Na.£.é5%{}fi3{}(3'Z daieé 2§w6.2GG'}' ﬁfid as a <§i:*&ctic-sn 2:} aiigpgaez of §?;'A.No.E4G;'i2602 WWW afresh. in the above Circumstances. this court praaeeﬁs in pass the following:

1 f0.§.§..§§..§ I Thii jﬁﬁgment and decree '?r..i :at.eAc:1. 29.6.2062? passed i.n R.A.No.143/.2069, 'A having Imt been set aside "By"t1j1£.---, I-}i;:):1 'big High Court of ' .% judgment in REA Ng;.258(;;__2%e.Q7, tt;;e;~'ev is "

rm neeﬁ ti} cmxsider ':Th'i;=g a§::§e.aI afre$h.,j'.......

2. It ig the submissi{).n c3f't.he léarnatf counsel for thft am:2:p§a§éi;£:;:--'£é';E_;§§éi.itfei§1g:f§._ that the de'£ﬁz'fi':1iI":se1ii:;>§';;_ :£%_:3§:'-?:'%é1d' a7ccju:5ed,ft'e5p0ndent was-:=s in {:Eé:%;;:':* ?e".%;s;§§.?x§f--§:::i:':«.:Q_f'aha:---"d'§'rec¥.i{3ns igfzsueczi to him, in as ..2--':'x::«i:_i":.*g. ;g§'§¢i::5 '22Ccus--€.év;*£r<:spondent naught to have paésaﬁvv:s3é§;n:{::a":'e.'~7'orders in the tzwcs appeais. 'V.._§-§a.%%i'ng___igg:8reé"i;E7a.§:«'afG1*e3$3ié éirestion, he digggmaed TbV<3t'§::.9«'V:}:+e appcais $33; 3 {:£}f¥§§iEO{1 orﬁtrr, without {E29 mgzriis af {fie ciaim in R.A.i4ﬁ/2002 " i¥?iﬁ€f§"i';fvi'}AiZ'iE;%'¥'i? E';-'M V536 ﬁave given mm' ifiaughtful consideraiion .. the suhmisaisng :':'::§<§%-5 the 3.€*.2§:'I'!€3C§ cimnsei fez:

KarI§a?14:ak._aT .. virie-. its ~ A 5% the complainants}peicitiozaersi It is however, not pG$Sib1€ fax' us to infer any intentional or cieiiberate disobedience ax" viaiatian 0f the directians isstﬁéd by this com: 9:: i&i2,f.£C§{§$ fwhiéé: aiisposingimfzjV.f§_;S.;§&._ NG.2580/208?}. it may we-Ii he possibl.e,iV_if.t2:.Vvéiiffiite "at the co:':<:i:25§m: which hag iearneé Cmmsei far the,' ::__GmpEaviiiants;;"pct:itioi;e1*::, ', but the accused/resgaondi-.;fi"E.V"V:iéayiiig.1A_§§i.i3r(iVised his inéepenéent éirmugiii;..._"i°'*e:;£%Vi'd§;5y '§E.}f1k'¢.;. A:'C{?IiCil.A'iSiA0I1 dated 1.12.2009 {as._§vias Vi"v;.i»§;fé.;a"s.:ii'tv.g~;:i'ii'*.ivﬁierein above).

Iniiiaiiﬁg. Z:::ii;id_%}%:;--iﬁ'i"i.a§'"'§rovisioz3's :31" the {:GiZ%i%;:'§ .E'}}§'?v.d i'iii9'?i, againsi the aCC'€1$ii3':_€i/ff£3Vi§€§Ef§"iZi_Vfié21f.""¥?i;€}'i1§{{"i aiso have the effect of exa:§ii":;i.:1g ti-:§: §::":eriits~; of the determination cf the Ziacigyixzscglbiliifriaspﬁnéent. In so far as the merits of the "ai"<-3, '£§V'z;%£:cerneﬁ, they must necessarily be def."e:rr'ri.i1.1é;§5' by the higher Court in terms of the «.x;3rVo.f\g'is~:'.V{*s2'is 0f" the {fade s:::£ iiivii §--"rGcedu:re. Thus "viévé.?ed§ whim ﬁeciding mat to initiate preceeﬁings hiviagaigwgi; téie :a:r:»::-zimrzi,f:<§:§§;as':§sfi<»::1t miéez' i:}"§€3 §;3.z"f_>ViS§ii3{1S sf the Coﬁtempi af Ccurts Am,' 1971, we leave it I 3 open {:0 the camﬁainaﬁts/petitioners to assail the order éaied {}E.i2,2G§9. hy avail uf an appropriate remeéjz in ::7i€.".£'{}I"€iﬁ§"ii.':(' wiiéa. Egan if ihey are sow zzdviaed.

The i:i$?££§n'£ a::-=.antem§;§. patizion is;":.<1ii::%Cp£2»'Se€i'.»._0f_ accerciingiy.

sak

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court